34818 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

State Plan. If no significant, material,

and adverse comments are received by

July 27, 1998, this action will be

effective August 25, 1998.

If the EPA receives significant,

material, and adverse comments by the

above date, this action will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document in

the Federal Register that will withdraw

this final action. All public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

parallel proposed rule published in

today’s Federal Register. The EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective August 25, 1998.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This Federal

action approves pre-existing

requirements under federal, State or

local law, and imposes no new

requirements on any entity affected by

this rule, including small entities.

Therefore, these amendments will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted on by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted a report containing

this rule and other required information

to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 25, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review, nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Emission

guidelines, Intergovernmental relations,

Municipal solid waste landfills,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 8, 1998.

Chuck Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 62.9350 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(5) to

read as follows:

§ 62.9350 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Control of landfill gas emission

from existing Municipal Solid Waste

Landfill plan was submitted by Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

on May 14, 1997.

(c) * * *

(5) Existing municipal solid waste

landfills.

3. Subpart MM is amended to add

§ 62.9510 and a new undesignated

heading to read as follows:

Control of Landfill Gas Emissions From

Existing Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills

§ 62.9510 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to all existing MSW

landfill facilities in Oregon meeting the

requirements as stated in their State

regulations.

[FR Doc. 98–17119 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–6114–4]

Fuels and Fuel Additives;

Amendments to the Enforcement

Exemptions for California Gasoline

Refiners

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

amending certain requirements of the

reformulated gasoline (RFG) regulations

which are applicable to California

gasoline refiners, importers and

oxygenate blenders. These amendments
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34819

1See 59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994), as amended

at 59 FR 36964 (July 20, 1994); 60 FR 2699 (January

11, 1995); 60 FR 35491 (July 10, 1995); 60 FR 65574

(December 20, 1995); and 62 FR 68196 (December

31, 1997).

2See Title 13, California Code of Regulations

sections 2250–2272 (as amended January 26, 1996).

3 Id., sections 2265 and 2266.

4As is discussed in section entitled ‘‘Oxygen

Standard,’’ below, however, this is not now the

case.

5See 59 FR 7758, 7759 (February 16, 1994) and

40 CFR 80.81.

6Specifically, the Federal RFG regulations at

§ 80.81 provide that, subsequent to March 1, 1996

(the start of the California Phase 2 program), the

specified parties are exempt from meeting the

enforcement requirements dealing with: compliance

surveys (§ 80.68), independent sampling and testing

(§ 80.65(f)), designation of gasoline (§ 80.65(d)),

marking of conventional gasoline (§§ 80.65(g) and

80.82), downstream oxygenate blending (§ 80.69),

record keeping (§§ 80.74 and 80.104), reporting

(§§ 80.75 and 80.105), product transfer documents

(§ 80.77), parameter value reconciliation

requirements (§ 80.65(e)(2)), reformulated gasoline

and Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for

Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) compliance

requirements (§ 80.65(c)), annual compliance audit

requirements (§ 80.65(h)), and compliance attest

engagement requirements (subpart F). Various

restrictions apply to the exemptions, and the

exemptions do not apply after December 31, 1999.

7See letter from Mr. Steve Herman, Assistant

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, EPA, to Mr. Douglas Henderson,

Executive Director, Western States Petroleum

Association, dated February 29, 1996. A copy of

this letter has been placed in the docket at the

location listed in the ADDRESSES section.

add flexibility with regard to test

methods, sampling and testing

requirements, and the use of gasoline

that does not meet the oxygen

requirement for Federal RFG in

California areas that are not Federal RFG

areas. EPA is taking this action in order

to reduce the burden associated with

overlapping California and Federal

regulations. There is no expected

adverse environmental impact from this

final action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes

effective on July 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne Pastorkovich, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air and

Radiation, (202) 564–8987.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

Regulated categories and entities

potentially affected by this action

include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ..... Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders in California

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could be potentially regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether an

entity is regulated by this action, one

should carefully examine the RFG

provisions at 40 CFR part 80,

particularly § 80.81 dealing specifically

with California gasoline. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

A. RFG Standards and California

Covered Areas

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act

(the Act) requires EPA to establish

requirements for reformulated gasoline

(RFG) to be used in specified ozone

nonattainment areas (Federal areas), as

well as ‘‘anti-dumping’’ requirements

for conventional gasoline used in the

rest of the country, beginning in January

1995. The federal RFG covered areas in

California are Los Angeles, San Diego,

and Sacramento. The Act requires that

RFG reduce ozone forming volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic

emissions from motor vehicles, not

increase emission of oxides of nitrogen

(NOx), and meet certain content

standards for oxygen, benzene and

heavy metals. The relevant regulations

for RFG and conventional gasoline may

be found at 40 CFR part 80, subparts D,

E, and F.1

B. Exemptions Specifically Related to

California Gasoline

On September 18, 1992, the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted

regulations requiring reformulation of

California ‘‘Phase 2’’ gasoline. The

CARB regulations established a

comprehensive set of gasoline

specifications designed to achieve

reductions in emissions of VOCs, NOx,

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide,

and toxic air pollutants from gasolinefueled vehicles.2 The CARB regulations

set standards for eight gasoline

parameters—sulfur, benzene, olefins,

aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygen, Reid

vapor pressure (RVP), and distillation

temperatures for the 50 percent and 90

percent evaporation points (T–50 and

T–90, respectively)—applicable starting

March 1, 1996 for all gasoline in the

California distribution network (except

for gasoline being exported from

California). The CARB regulations also

provide for the production and sale of

alternative gasoline formulations, with

certification under the CARB program

based on a predictive model or on

vehicle emission testing.3

During the Federal RFG rulemaking,

and in response to comments by

California refiners, EPA concluded (1)

that VOC and toxics emission

reductions resulting from the California

Phase 2 standards would be equal to or

more stringent than the Federal Phase I

RFG standards (applicable from January

1, 1995 through December 31, 1999), (2)

that the content standards for oxygen

and benzene under California Phase 2

would in practice be equivalent to the

Federal content standards,4 and (3) that

the CARB’s compliance and

enforcement program is designed to be

sufficiently rigorous.5 While the Federal

RFG and conventional gasoline

standards continue to apply in

California, refiners, importers, and

oxygenate blenders of gasoline sold in

California (referred to collectively as

‘‘California refiners’’) are exempt in

most cases from various enforcementrelated provisions.6 California refiners

are not exempt from these Federal

enforcement requirements with regard

to gasoline that is delivered for use

outside California, because the

California Phase 2 standards and the

CARB enforcement program do not

cover gasoline exported from California.

C. Issues Raised by WSPA & EPA’s

Response

In letters of June 15, August 3, and

November 10, 1995, the Western States

Petroleum Association (WSPA), on

behalf of California refiners, petitioned

EPA to revise the enforcement-related

exemption provisions at 40 CFR 80.81.

The three principal areas discussed in

the petition are the gasoline testing

methods, the standard for Reid vapor

pressure (RVP), and use of California

certification methods without minimum

oxygen content requirements. (These

certification methods, the predictive

model and the vehicle emissions testing

model, are discussed in greater detail

below.) In February 1996, EPA notified

WSPA that EPA would initiate

rulemaking to address these issues.7

Since the California Phase 2 program

was scheduled to begin March 1, 1996,

EPA announced that it would grant

California refiners temporary relief

through specific exemptions from

enforcement-related test methods,

oxygen content of gasoline not used in

the RFG areas, and RVP. This temporary

relief would remain in place until the

rulemakings could be completed.

A final rule related to the RVP

standard was published as a direct final

rule in the Federal Register on May 8,
34820 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

8 ‘‘Fuels and Fuel Additives—Reformulated

Gasoline Sold in California; Reid Vapor Pressure

lower limit adjustment— Direct Final Rule,’’ 61 FR

20736 (May 8, 1996).

9 ‘‘Fuels and Fuel Additives—Amendments to the

Enforcement Exemptions for California Gasoline

Refiners—Proposed Rule,’’ 62 FR 18696 (April 16,

1997).

10See 40 CFR 80.46(a), (e), (f) and (g) for Federal

RFG test method requirements.

11EPA estimates that the portion of gasoline

exported from California and used in neighboring

states is about twelve percent of the total California

gasoline production and imports.

12A copy of the letter has been placed in the

public docket at the location listed in the

ADDRESSES section. See also, 62 FR 18696 (April 16,

1997).

13See Title 13, California Code of Regulations,

section 2262.5 for the oxygen standards, section

1996, and became effective on July 8,

1996.8

III. Description of Today’s Action

On April 16, 1997 EPA published a

proposal addressing the remaining two

issues: gasoline testing methods and the

use (in conventional gasoline areas) of

gasoline certified by California methods

not meeting the Federal RFG standard

for oxygen content.9 Some additional

issues were addressed in the proposal,

including sampling and testing, and

these are discussed in greater detail

below. EPA proposed changes very

similar to the temporary enforcement

exemptions granted to the California

refiners in its February 1996 letter.

A. Test Methods

Both the Federal RFG and the

California Phase 2 programs specify

testing methods to demonstrate

compliance with the standards

applicable under each program.

However, in the case of the tests for four

parameters (benzene, sulfur, oxygen,

and aromatics) the methods 10 specified

under the two programs are different.

The applicable exemption in the

Federal RFG regulation at 40 CFR

80.81(h) allows California refiners to use

the California test methods prescribed

in Title 13, California Code of

Regulations, sections 2260 et seq.,

instead of the Federal test methods

prescribed at 40 CFR 80.46, when

producing California Phase 2 gasoline

that is used in California. However,

California refiners are still required to

use the Federal test methods prescribed

at 40 CFR 80.46 for gasoline that is used

outside California, including

conventional gasoline subject to the

anti-dumping standards specified at 40

CFR 80.101.11

WSPA, on behalf of California

refiners, requested that EPA extend the

test method exemption at 40 CFR

80.81(h) to cover the conventional

gasoline produced by California refiners

that is exported from California to other

states. WSPA asked for this change

because a refiner who is utilizing the

flexibility of the CARB testing methods

for gasoline sold within California,

would have to also use the Federal test

methods to certify the same gasoline for

export to surrounding states.

After considering the issues raised,

EPA believed that, under certain

conditions, it may be appropriate to

allow the use of non-Federal test

methods for conventional gasoline

exported from California. Absent relief,

a California refiner that chooses to

utilize the flexibility of the CARB

testing methods would have to

implement the Federal test methods in

order to certify its conventional gasoline

for distribution outside California.

EPA further believes that the

standards under the California Phase 2

program are expected to result in

emissions decreases at least as great as

with Federal Phase I RFG and emissions

levels of conventional gasoline and

CARB is expected to enforce the

California standards in a

comprehensive, aggressive manner that

will result in high compliance. The

Agency does not believe that any

environmental detriment would be

likely to occur from allowing the use of

the CARB test methods for conventional

gasoline produced in California, but

shipped out of state for use in non-RFG

areas.

In its February 29, 1996 response to

WSPA, EPA indicates its intention to

change the Federal RFG regulations to

allow additional testing flexibility for

California refiners and immediately

gave California refiners additional

flexibility for a limited time. In that

letter, EPA states that if certain

conditions are met it will not enforce

the requirement at 40 CFR 80.65(e)(1)

and 40 CFR 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A) to test

conventional gasoline using the Federal

test methods specified under 40 CFR

80.46 for benzene, sulfur, oxygen or

aromatics, with regard to gasoline that is

produced in or imported into California

but that is used outside California.

In order to qualify for this

enforcement relief, the refiner or

importer was required to meet certain

conditions, as described in great detail

in the February 29, 1996 letter and in

the notice of proposed rulemaking.12

Furthermore, equivalency between

CARB and Federal test method results

must be established, since the methods

themselves are not necessarily

equivalent and therefore different

methods (if not correlated) would yield

different results.

Thus, to qualify for the relief, EPA

proposed that the gasoline must be

produced at a refinery located in

California at which gasoline meeting the

California Phase 2 standards and

requirements is produced, or the

gasoline must be imported into

California from outside the United

States as California Phase 2 gasoline

(i.e., gasoline that meets the standards

and requirements of the California

Phase 2 program). When exported from

California, such gasoline may not be

classified as Federal RFG. Furthermore,

the refiner must correlate the results

from any non-Federal test method to the

method specified under 40 CFR § 80.46

for any gasoline that is used outside

California, and such correlation must be

demonstrated to EPA upon request.

EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 80.81

to incorporate the flexibility regarding

test methods that EPA temporarily

granted in its February 29, 1996 letter to

WSPA. EPA proposed this action

because the Agency believes that it may

result in lower compliance costs and

greater flexibility for California refiners

and because there is no expected

adverse environmental impact from this

proposed action.

B. Oxygen Standard

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act

requires that the RFG standard of 2.0

weight percent (wt%) minimum oxygen

must be met in each Federal RFG area.

When EPA promulgated the California

enforcement exemptions at 40 CFR

80.81, it was intended that the statewide

standards for California Phase 2 gasoline

would be equal to or more stringent

than all Federal RFG standards. With

regard to oxygen content, the California

Phase 2 standards included a statewide

flat limit of 1.8 to 2.2 wt% oxygen that

EPA considered, in practice, to be

equivalent to the Federal standard of 2.0

wt% minimum. As a result, EPA did not

need to distinguish between California

Phase 2 gasoline used in the Federal

RFG areas within California, from the

California Phase 2 gasoline used in the

other areas of California, in order to

have confidence that RFG standards

would be met in each Federal RFG area

in California.

The final California Phase 2

requirements were changed, however,

and now allow gasoline that does not

meet the Federal RFG standard for

oxygen. Under two alternative

California certification methods, the

California predictive model and the

vehicle emissions testing method, there

is no minimum oxygen content

requirement for summertime California

Phase 2 gasoline.13 Under 40 CFR
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34821

2265 for the alternative predictive model method,

and section 2266 for the alternative vehicle

emission testing method.

80.81(e)(2), certain enforcement

exemptions are withdrawn if a

California refiner uses one of the

alternative California certification

methods, unless within 30 days of

receiving the California certification it

notifies EPA and demonstrates that its

gasoline meets all Federal RFG pergallon standards, including the 2.0

weight % oxygen standard.

Therefore, in order to retain the

enforcement exemptions, 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) required that all California

Phase 2 gasoline produced by a refiner,

regardless of whether it is sold in a

Federal RFG area, meet the Federal RFG

standard for oxygen content. Because

neither of the two alternative California

certification methods ensure that the

Federal oxygen content standard will be

met, except during designated winter

months, a refiner that uses an

alternative California certification

method would have to provide

notification and demonstrate to EPA

that its gasoline meets the Federal RFG

standard for oxygen content or lose its

eligibility for certain Federal

exemptions under 40 CFR 80.81. This

loss of eligibility would apply even if

the gasoline not meeting the Federal

RFG standard for oxygen content is

being distributed only to those areas of

California that are not Federal RFG

areas.

In its petition, WSPA asked EPA to

amend the enforcement exemption

provisions to allow California refiners to

supply California Phase 2 gasoline

containing less than 2.0 wt% oxygen to

markets within California that are not

Federal RFG areas without having to

comply with the notification and

demonstration requirements of 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) and without losing the

Federal enforcement exemptions. In its

February 29, 1996 response to WSPA,

EPA said it may be appropriate to

amend 40 CFR 80.81, provided that

annual gasoline quality surveys for

oxygen content are conducted in each

Federal RFG area, in order to ensure the

gasoline sold there is in compliance

with the Federal oxygen content

standard.

Consistent with, and as described in,

the February 29, 1996 letter, EPA

proposed to amend 40 CFR 80.81 to

allow refiners to produce California

Phase 2 gasoline containing less than

2.0 wt% oxygen for use outside the

Federal RFG areas in California,

provided appropriate annual gasoline

quality surveys for oxygen are

conducted in each Federal RFG area in

California. These surveys must show an

average oxygen content in each covered

area of at least 2.0 wt%. While EPA

could require that all gasoline batches

being produced for the Federal RFG

areas be tested for oxygen content at the

refinery, or prior to importation as

applicable, such testing would not

ensure that all gasoline being sold in the

Federal RFG areas contains at least 2.0

wt% oxygen.

As in the Federal RFG program areas

outside of California, the compliance

surveys appear to be the most practical

method to assure that, on average,

Federal RFG standards are met for each

covered area. The Federal RFG program

at 40 CFR 80.67 allows refiners,

importers, and oxygenate blenders to

meet certain Federal RFG standards on

average, rather than on a per-gallon

basis for each batch of gasoline. The

requirement must then be met on

average, over the entire production,

without any averaging for each specific

covered area to which the gasoline is

distributed. The following paragraphs

describe how the general RFG survey

requirements (i.e. those surveys

required by § 80.68 and applicable

outside California) and how the more

limited California oxygen surveys are

designed. For general RFG surveys, the

discussion here will focus on oxygen

surveys.

C. General Survey Requirements

Refiners, importers and oxygenate

blenders producing gasoline to meet the

Federal RFG standards on average are

allowed to produce some batches of

gasoline that are less stringent than the

averaging standards (within the limits of

a per-gallon minimum or maximum

standard, as applicable). But they must

also produce some batches of gasoline

that are more stringent than the

averaging standards, such that on

average, the applicable averaging

standard is met. The averaging

standards are somewhat more stringent

than the per-gallon standard (e.g., the

oxygen content averaging standard is 2.1

wt%, and the per-gallon standard is 2.0

wt%). It is expected that, if all refiners

meet either the per-gallon standards or

the averaging standards, the covered

areas receiving their gasoline should

achieve an average oxygen content no

lower than would occur without the

allowance for such averaging, based on

the extensive fungible distribution

system for gasoline products. Even

though each refinery might meet its

refinery gate standard for oxygen on

average, there is a risk that some areas

might actually receive RFG with

relatively low oxygen content while

others might receive RFG with relatively

high oxygen content. The surveys are

designed to lessen this risk and ensure

that all Federal RFG program areas at

any given time receive RFG that meets

the required oxygen standard.

More specifically, because many

gasoline distribution systems are

fungible, some uncertainty exists as to

where each batch of gasoline from each

supplier is ultimately distributed, and

what batches, or portions of batches,

from each supplier that each covered

area actually receives. For example,

under the averaging program, the

possibility still exists that one or more

covered areas may receive too many

batches of RFG that have a relatively

low oxygen content (e.g. greater than or

equal to 1.5 wt%, but less than 2.0

wt%), so that the required oxygen levels

will not have been achieved in that area.

Consequently, the Federal RFG

program at 40 CFR 80.67 requires

compliance surveys under 40 CFR 80.68

for refiners that elect to meet the

standards on average under 40 CFR

80.41(b), (d) or (f), as applicable, rather

than to meet the per-gallon standards for

each batch of gasoline under 40 CFR

80.41(a), (c), or (e), as applicable. In

general, the compliance surveys are to

ensure that each covered area receives

gasoline that cumulatively (from all

suppliers and across time) has the same

oxygen content it would have if

averaging was not allowed. However,

the Federal RFG regulations at 40 CFR

80.81(b)(1) exempted refiners of

California gasoline (with respect to

California gasoline) from the

compliance survey provisions at 40 CFR

80.68, for the reasons described earlier.

D. Limited Oxygen Surveys for

California

In response to the WSPA request

concerning oxygen content

requirements in California and the

changes in California Phase 2 standards

regarding oxygen content, EPA

considered a limited application of the

compliance survey provisions. EPA

believes that a yearly series of oxygen

surveys, similar to 40 CFR 80.68 surveys

for averaging under the Federal RFG

program, but limited in their scope,

provides the most flexible alternative to

refiners and the most assurance to EPA

that complying gasoline is actually

being sold in the Federal RFG areas.

In its February 29, 1996 response to

WSPA, EPA decided to allow California

refiners to produce gasoline that

contains less than 2.0 wt% oxygen for

use outside the Federal RFG areas, until

today’s amendments to the RFG

requirements could be published in the

Federal Register and become effective.

In particular, EPA said it will not
34822 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

14Under 40 CFR 80.68(b), the required number of

compliance surveys required in a year for Federal

RFG areas outside of California depends partly on

the number of areas required to be surveyed in the

year, the number of surveys conducted the previous

year, and the survey results from the previous year.

15Refiners, importers, and blenders have formed

a survey association which funds the survey

program. In accordance with § 80.68(c)(13), the

survey program is administered by an independent

surveyor.

16There is an exception for ‘‘low volume’’ parties

under 40 CFR 80.41(q)(iii). Specifically, if a refiner

or oxygenate blender is able to show that the

volume of RFG supplied to a covered area is less

than one percent of the RFG produced at its refinery

or oxygenate blending facility during the failed

year, or 100,000 barrels, whichever is less, he may

be exempt from the more stringent standards.

enforce the requirement at 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) that California refiners must

demonstrate that Federal RFG per-gallon

standards are met on each occasion

California Phase 2 gasoline is certified

under Title 13, California Code of

Regulations, section 2265 (dealing with

gasoline certification based on the

California predictive model), provided

that two conditions are met. The

conditions are: first, a program of

gasoline quality surveys must be

conducted in each RFG covered area in

California each year to monitor annual

average oxygen content. Second, the

surveys must be conducted in

accordance with each requirement

specified under 40 CFR 80.68(b) and (c),

dealing with surveys for RFG quality,

and 40 CFR 80.41(o) through (r), dealing

with the effects of survey failures,

except that the surveys need only

evaluate for oxygen content and a

minimum of four surveys (a survey

series) must be conducted in each

covered area each calendar year.

In its April 16, 1997 proposal, EPA

announced its intention to retain the

existing 30-day notification and

demonstration provisions at 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) as an option. EPA further

proposed that the oxygen surveys

conducted in California should not be

considered for the purposes of

determining the required number of

surveys that must be conducted for

compliance with the general survey

provisions under the Federal RFG

program at 40 CFR 80.68.14 A fixed

number of surveys (i.e. a minimum of

four per year) was proposed for

California, consistent with the

temporary enforcement position

announced in the February 29, 1996

letter. As with the surveys required

under 40 CFR 80.68 for Federal areas

outside of California, EPA will

determine when these optional surveys

conducted in California under 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) shall be conducted.

The February 29, 1996 letter to WSPA

did not address the consequences of

passing and failing an optional survey

series in a Federal RFG area in

California under 40 CFR 80.81(e)(2). The

April 16, 1997 document proposed that,

for the limited oxygen survey option

included in today’s rule, failing a survey

would result in a ‘‘ratcheting’’ of (i.e.,

increasing) the minimum oxygen

content standard, for each gallon of

averaged gasoline, by an additional

0.1%. Only one year of passing the

survey series in a covered area will be

needed to initiate relaxation of the

minimum oxygen content standard for

the following year. EPA proposed that

the minimum oxygen content standard

be relaxed by 0.1 wt% for each year

following a year in which the survey

series passes in a Federal RFG area in

California. However, EPA will not allow

the minimum oxygen content standard

to be less than 1.5 wt%, the minimum

oxygen content standard for Federal

RFG under averaging. As with failures

of survey series required under 40 CFR

80.68 in Federal RFG areas outside of

California in accordance with 40 CFR

80.41(q)(4), adjusted standards under

the compliance survey option of 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) apply to all averaged

gasoline produced by a refiner for use in

any Federal RFG area.

The procedures and consequences of

the oxygen surveys set forth in the April

16, 1997 notice or proposed rulemaking

differed somewhat from the general

survey consequences under 40 CFR

80.68, because surveys applicable in

California are much smaller in scope.

EPA proposed that the ultimate

consequence of multiple failures of the

optional compliance surveys be

withdrawal of the survey option, rather

than the effective withdrawal of the

averaging option, as with the required

compliance surveys conducted under 40

CFR 80.68 for Federal RFG areas outside

of California. EPA proposed this

consequence because the compliance

survey option provides refiners of

California gasoline additional flexibility

under the Federal exemption

provisions, conditioned on the premise

that those refiners will control the

oxygen content of the gasoline being

distributed to the Federal RFG areas

within California. If the refiners do not

control the oxygen content of the

gasoline going to those areas as

determined by the results of the surveys,

EPA believes that it may be reasonable

to remove the flexibility provided under

this option. Consequently, if EPA

proposed that a failure of a survey series

in one Federal RFG area in California for

three consecutive years occurs, or an

equivalent ‘‘net’’ failure of three years

over any number of years (i.e., number

of years the survey series failed

subtracted from the number of years the

survey series passed), the compliance

survey option will no longer be

applicable for any Federal RFG area in

California. In practice, this situation

will occur if a survey series fails for a

covered area in a year in which the

minimum oxygen content standard had

been raised to 1.7 wt% due to a survey

series failure in that covered area the

previous year.

It is important to realize that

successive oxygen survey failures might

be an indication of the inability or

unwillingness of California refiners to

meet RFG standards. As such, EPA

noted in the April 16, 1997 notice of

proposed rulemaking that future

rulemaking to remove some or all

California enforcement exemptions

might be appropriate. If a survey does

not occur, then all refiners electing to

use an alternative certification method

must follow the notification

requirements at § 80.81(e)(2)(i),

including the requirement to

demonstrate that all their gasoline meets

each of the complex model standards

listed in § 80.41(c). Furthermore, in

accordance with § 80.81(e)(2)(i), the

California enforcement exemptions will

not apply to a refiner who chooses an

alternative certification method, but

fails to meet these notification and

demonstration requirements.

Consistent with the existing

compliance survey requirements for

Federal RFG areas outside of California,

EPA proposed to allow the optional

compliance survey under 40 CFR

80.81(e)(2) to be conducted either by

individual refiners under 40 CFR

80.68(a) or as a group of refiners under

40 CFR 80.68(b).15 The temporary

enforcement position announced by the

February 29, 1996 response to WSPA

omitted the individual survey option of

40 CFR 80.68(a), because that survey

option is not currently being used and

is not expected to be used for practical

reasons. The consequences of any

survey failure will apply to all

suppliers 16 who comply on an

averaging basis and who serve the failed

area.

Consistent with the existing RFG

regulations at 40 CFR part 80, the

February 29, 1996 letter to WSPA, and

the April 16, 1997 notice of proposed

rulemaking, California Phase 2 gasoline

that does not meet the Federal RFG

standards, including the oxygen

standard, is classified under the Federal

regulations as conventional gasoline. In

addition, today’s amendments do not

alter the prohibitions under section
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34823

17Under 40 CFR 80.2 (h), a ‘‘refinery’’ is ‘‘a plant

where gasoline or diesel fuel is produced.’’

211(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act, and 40

CFR 80.78(a)(1) against selling or

dispensing conventional gasoline to

ultimate consumers in Federal RFG

areas, and against selling conventional

gasoline for resale in Federal RFG areas

unless the gasoline is segregated and

marked as ‘‘conventional gasoline, not

for sale to ultimate consumers in a

covered area.’’ Nothing in today’s action

would change the requirement that

refiners and importers in California

meet all other Federal RFG standards,

including the oxygen standard, for

gasoline produced or imported for use

in Federal RFG covered areas in

California. These standards must be met

separately for each refinery and by each

importer.

The amendments to 40 CFR 80.81 as

set forth in today’s notice are consistent

with the February 29, 1996 letter to

WSPA and the April 16, 1997 notice of

proposed rulemaking. Comments related

to this provision are summarized in

section IV, ‘‘Response to Comments,’’

below.

E. Correction to § 80.81(e)(1)

EPA proposed to correct 40 CFR

80.81(e)(1), which erroneously omits

one provision, paragraph (f), from the

list of enforcement exemption

provisions that would not apply under

the conditions of paragraphs (e)(2) or

(e)(3). Paragraph (e)(2) specifies that the

exemption provisions listed in

paragraph (e)(1) do not apply if a refiner

certifies California gasoline under one of

the alternative California certification

procedures, unless the refiner notifies

EPA of that alternative certification and

demonstrates to EPA that its gasoline

meets all Federal per-gallon standards.

(Today’s rule adds a compliance survey

option to paragraph (e)(2)(ii).) Paragraph

(e)(3) specifies that the exemption

provisions listed in paragraph (e)(1) do

not apply in the case of a refiner of

California gasoline that has been

assessed a civil, criminal or

administrative penalty for certain

violations of Federal or California

regulations, except upon a showing of

good cause.

Paragraph (f) specifies that for

California phase 2 gasoline (California

gasoline that is sold or made available

for sale after March 1, 1996) the

following Federal RFG enforcement

requirements are waived: the

oxygenated fuels provisions of

§ 80.78(a)(1)(iii), the product transfer

provisions of § 80.78(a)(1)(iv), the

oxygenate blending provisions

contained in § 80.78(a)(7), and the

segregation of simple and complex

model certified gasoline provision of

§ 80.78(a)(9). Under the conditions of

either paragraph (e)(2) or (e)(3), EPA

would need those enforcement

provisions to ensure that gasoline being

used in Federal RFG areas in California

complies with the Federal standards.

Therefore, EPA proposed to amend

paragraph 40 CFR 80.81(e)(1) to include

paragraph (f) in the list of enforcement

exemptions that would become

inapplicable under the conditions of

paragraphs (e)(2) or (e)(3). No comments

were received on this aspect of the April

16, 1997 proposal and the proposed

corrections are finalized in today’s rule.

F. Sampling and Testing Requirements

for California Refiners

Under 40 CFR 80.65(e)(1), a refiner

must determine the properties of each

batch of RFG it produces prior to the

gasoline leaving the refinery.17 Under

the California RFG program, refiners

may obtain approval to sample and test

gasoline for compliance with California

RFG standards at off-site ‘‘production’’

tankage. This approval would have to be

obtained under Title 13, section

2260(a)(28) of the California Code of

Regulations, which states:

(28) ‘‘Production facility’’ means a facility

in California at which gasoline or CARBOB

is produced. Upon request of a producer, the

executive officer [of CARB] may designate, as

part of the producer’s production facility, a

physically separate bulk storage facility

which (A) is owned or leased by the

producer, and (B) is operated by or at the

direction of the producer, and (C)is not used

to store or distribute gasoline or CARBOB

that is not supplied from the production

facility.’’

It is EPA’s understanding that the

third requirement, (C), is interpreted by

CARB to require that the gasoline must

be transported to the off-site tankage via

a dedicated pipeline.

On April 16, 1997, EPA proposed

amendments to 40 CFR 80.81(h), which

would allow California refiners who

have obtained approval from the State of

California to conduct sampling and

testing at off-site tankage served by a

dedicated pipeline to use this approach

under the Federal RFG program as well.

Specifically, EPA proposed to allow a

California refiner who has obtained

approval from the State of California to

conduct sampling and testing at off-site

tankage under California Code of

Regulations Title 13, section

2260(a)(28), to conduct sampling and

testing at such approved off-site tankage

for purposes of the Federal RFG

program. The gasoline must be sampled

and tested under the terms of a current,

valid protocol agreement between the

refiner and CARB. The refiner must

provide a copy of the current, valid

protocol agreement specifying the offsite tankage as part of the production

facility, to the EPA Administrator or the

Administrator’s designated agent, upon

request. No comments were received on

this issue and the sampling and testing

provisions are finalized in today’s rule

as proposed.

IV. Response to Comments

A. Consequences of Successive Survey

Failures

As discussed above, EPA proposed

that successive survey failures for three

years, or an equivalent ‘‘net’’ failures of

three years over any number of years

(i.e. number of years the survey series

failed subtracted from the number of

years the survey series passed), would

result in the elimination of the survey

option. Elimination of the survey option

would mean that all California gasoline

of each refiner, including gasoline

certified under an alternative

certification method and sold in nonRFG cities, would have to meet Federal

oxygen standards. Each refiner

certifying under an alternative

certification would have no option but

compliance with the notification and

demonstration requirements at 40 CFR

80.81(e)(1).

If successive oxygen survey failures

were to occur, EPA would be forced to

consider whether some or all of the

California enforcement exemptions in

40 CFR 80.81 should be revoked via

rulemaking. Successive survey failures

might well indicate a widespread

problem with the quality of California

gasoline and may call into question the

equivalency of such gasoline with

respect to Federal Phase I RFG. Such a

revocation would apply to all California

refiners, importers, and blenders.

One commenter disagreed and stated

that the result of successive survey

failures should not be removal of the

survey option and the possible

revocation of some or all of the

California enforcement exemptions.

Rather, the commenter believes that the

result of successive survey failures

should be the requirement that all

gasoline in Federal RFG areas meet the

per-gallon 2.0 weight % minimum.

EPA disagrees with the commenter.

Today’s rule, which matches the

proposal, is designed to add a

flexibility—i.e., the flexibility to utilize

a survey option and produce gasoline

not meeting Federal oxygen standards in

non-Federally covered areas—where

such flexibility did not exist before.

Nothing in today’s action alters the
34824 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

18 58 FR 51736 (October 4, 1993). 19 Id. at section 3(f)(1)-(4).

applicability of Federal standards in

RFG areas in California. Specifically,

each gallon of gasoline in RFG areas

was, and is, required to meet a 2.0

weight % minimum for parties

complying on a per gallon basis. Each

gallon of gasoline for an averaging party

is required to meet a minimum of 1.5

weight %. All gallons produced by an

averaging refiner during a given

compliance period must average to 2.1

weight%. Since Federal oxygen

standards continue to apply in RFG

areas, the consequence for survey failure

suggested by the commenter, in fact,

amounts to no consequence at all.

As discussed above and in the April

16, 1997 proposal, successive or

excessive survey failures would raise

serious concerns about the expected

equivalency between Federal Phase I

RFG and California Phase 2 gasoline

sold in Federally covered areas. EPA

would need to assess the impact of these

failures, should they occur, on the

program, and would initiate a noticeand-comment rulemaking procedure, if

such action is in the public interest.

B. Use of GC/FTIR Method (ASTM 5986)

EPA proposed that California gasoline

refiners, importers, and blenders be

permitted to substitute Californiaapproved analytical techniques or test

methods for Federal test methods when

producing gasoline used in California

and for conventional gasoline used

outside of California. California test

methods could not be utilized for

gasoline intended for ‘‘export’’ to

markets in states outside California as

Federal RFG.

One commenter stated that EPA

should allow all refiners the option of

using the GC/FTIR method (ASTM

5986) for aromatics, benzene, and

oxygen content, independent of this

rulemaking. Further, the commenter

urges EPA to allow the use of California

test methods for not just California

gasoline sold within the state or

exported as conventional, but for all

RFG that is produced by California

refiners for the purpose of exportation to

other states as Federal Phase I RFG. At

this time, EPA does not believe that

adoption of California test methods for

Federal RFG destined to be sold outside

California is appropriate without further

study. Therefore, gasoline produced by

California refiners for the purpose of

exportation to other states as Federal

RFG remains subject to the Federal test

methods. However, EPA intends to fully

consider the larger issue of RFG test

methods as part of a separate action

related to performance-based test

methods.

V. Statutory Authority

Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.

7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

VI. Environmental Impact

This rule is expected to have no

negative environmental impact. These

amendments are intended to eliminate

duplicative enforcement requirements,

and do not relax the Federal standards.

The additional testing flexibility

allowed certain refiners of California

gasoline under today’s regulation may,

in fact, result in an environmental

benefit because it would give California

refiners flexibility to sell gasoline

meeting California Phase 2 standards as

Federal conventional gasoline in other

areas. It is reasonable to expect that

such gasoline would be ‘‘cleaner’’ than

other conventional gasoline and could

result in an environmental benefit to the

areas receiving it.

VII. Economic Impact and Impact on

Small Entities

EPA has determined that this final

rule will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. Today’s regulation would

have a positive economic impact on the

great majority of entities regulated by

the RFG regulation, including small

businesses. Specifically, it give refiners

of California gasoline additional

operational flexibility and is not

expected to result in any additional

compliance costs for regulated parties,

including small entities. A regulatory

flexibility analysis has therefore not

been prepared.

VIII. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866,18 the

Agency must determine whether a

regulation is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments of

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof, or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in this Executive Order.19

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

IX. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘UMRA’’), Pub. L. 104–4, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any general notice of

proposed rulemaking or final rule that

includes a Federal mandate which may

result in estimated costs to State, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more. Under section 205, for any rule

subject to section 202 EPA generally

must select the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Under section

203, before establishing any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, EPA

must take steps to inform and advise

small governments of the requirements

and enable them to provide input.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not include a Federal mandate as

defined in UMRA. The rule does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs to State,

local or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more, and it does not

establish regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments.

X. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of

1996, generally provides that before a

rule may take effect, the agency

promulgating the rule must submit a

rule report, which includes a copy of

the rule, to each House of the Congress

and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34825

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

XI. Children’s Health Protection

This final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997), because it does not involve

decisions on environmental health risks

or safety risks that may

disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

Environmental protection, California

exemptions, Fuel additives, Gasoline,

Reformulated gasoline, Imports,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 17, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 40 CFR Part 80 is amended as

follows:

PART 80—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 80

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 114, 211, and 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414,

7545, and 7601(a)).

2. Section 80.81 is amended by

revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2) and (h)

to read as follows:

§ 80.81 Enforcement exemptions for

California gasoline.

* * * * *

(e)(1) The exemption provisions

contained in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),

(c), and (f) of this section shall not apply

under the circumstances set forth in

paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this

section.

(2) Such exemption provisions shall

not apply to any refiner, importer, or

oxygenate blender of California gasoline

with regards to any gasoline formulation

that it produces or imports is certified

under Title 13, California Code of

Regulations, section 2265 or section

2266 (as amended July 2, 1996), unless:

(i) Written notification option. (A) The

refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender,

within 30 days of the issuance of such

certification:

(1) Notifies the Administrator of such

certification;

(2) Submits to the Administrator

copies of the applicable certification

order issued by the State of California

and the application for certification

submitted by the regulated party to the

State of California; and

(3) Submits to the Administrator a

written demonstration that all gasoline

formulations produced, imported or

blended by the refiner, importer or

oxygenate blender for use in California

meets each of the complex model pergallon standards specified in § 80.41(c).

(B) If the Administrator determines

that the written demonstration

submitted under paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A)

of this section does not demonstrate that

all certified gasoline formulations meet

each of the complex model per-gallon

standards specified in § 80.41(c), the

Administrator shall provide notice to

the party (by first class mail) of such

determination and of the date on which

the exemption provisions specified in

paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall no

longer be applicable, which date shall

be no earlier than 90 days after the date

of the Administrator’s notification.

(ii) Compliance survey option. The

compliance survey requirements of

§ 80.68 are met for each covered area in

California for which the refiner,

importer or oxygenate blender supplies

gasoline for use in the covered area,

except that:

(A) The survey series must determine

compliance only with the oxygen

content standard of 2.0 weight-percent;

(B) The survey series must consist of

at least four surveys a year for each

covered area;

(C) The surveys shall not be included

in determining the number of surveys

under § 80.68(b)(2);

(D) In the event a survey series

conducted under this paragraph

(e)(2)(ii) fails in accordance with

§ 80.68(c)(12), the provisions of

§§ 80.41(o), (p) and (q) are applicable,

except that if the survey series failure

occurs in a year in which the applicable

minimum oxygen content is 1.7 weight

percent, the compliance survey option

of this section shall not be applicable for

any future year; and

(E) Not withstanding § 80.41(o), in the

event a covered area passes the oxygen

content series in a year, the minimum

oxygen content standard for that

covered area beginning in the year

following the passed survey series shall

be made less stringent by decreasing the

minimum oxygen content standard by

0.1%, except that in no case shall the

minimum oxygen content standard be

less than that specified in § 80.41(d).

* * * * *

(h)(1) For the purposes of the batch

sampling and analysis requirements

contained in § 80.65(e)(1)and

§ 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A), any refiner, importer

or oxygenate blender of California

gasoline may use a sampling and/or

analysis methodology prescribed in

Title 13, California Code of Regulations,

sections 2260 et seq. (as amended July

2, 1996), in lieu of any applicable

methodology specified in § 80.46, with

regards to

(i) Such gasoline; or

(ii) That portion of its gasoline

produced or imported for use in other

areas of the United States, provided

that:

(A) The gasoline must be produced by

a refinery that is located in the state of

California that produces California

gasoline, or imported into California

from outside the United States as

California Phase 2 gasoline;

(B) The gasoline must be classified as

conventional gasoline upon exportation

from the California; and

(C) The refiner or importer must

correlate the results from the applicable

sampling and /or analysis methodology

prescribed in Title 13, California Code

of Regulations, sections 2260 et seq. (as

amended July 2, 1996), with the method

specified at § 80.46, and such

correlation must be adequately

demonstrated to EPA upon request.

(2) Nothwithstanding the

requirements of § 80.65(e)(1) regarding

when the properties of a batch of

reformulated gasoline must be

determined, a refiner of California

gasoline may determine the properties

of gasoline as specified under

§ 80.65(e)(1) at off site tankage provided

that:

(i) The samples are properly collected

under the terms of a current and valid

protocol agreement between the refiner

and the California Air Resources Board

with regard to sampling at the off site

tankage and consistent with

requirements prescribed in Title 13,

California Code of Regulations, sections

2260 et seq.(as amended July 2, 1996);

and

(ii) The refiner provides a copy of the

protocol agreement to EPA upon

request.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–16669 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180, 185, and 186

[OPP–300638; FRL–5783–6]

RIN 2070–AB78

Recodification of Certain Tolerance

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.